Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

hyades1 writes "Gizmodo reports that Verizon is sending out notification letters infested with virtually-indecipherable legalese. In their sneaky, underhanded way, they're informing you that you have 45 days to opt out of their plan to share your personal data with 'affiliates, agents and parent companies.' That data can include, but isn't limited to, 'services purchased (including specific calls you make and receive), billing info, technical info and location info.' If you view your statement on-line, you won't even get the letter. You'll have to access your account and view your messages. However, Read Write Web says the link provided there, called the 'Customer Proprietary Network Information Notice,' was listed as 'not available.' No doubt Verizon would like to reassure you that everyone they're going to hand your personal data over to will have your best interests at heart."

If congress didn't lock these companies in place with huge piles of money, we might have some entrepreneurs entering the space with words like, "customer", "service", and "helpful" in their dictionary.

Anyhow, I hope this presents an opportunity to end my contract with Verizon, I missed the last one they never mailed me.

In the meantime, here's how to opt-out (taken from the mouth of FredicvsMaximvs from the article comments)

- Sign in to the Verizon website.- On the red bar near the top, hover over "My Verizon." Click on "My Profile." (Don't go over to the sub-menu that pops up.)- In the second section down, under Phone Controls, there's a link to "View/Edit Privacy (CPNI) Settings." Click on that.- Voila! Click on the button that says "Don't share my CPNI." Remember to hit the save button before you leave.

Then other people who agree with the case of the plaintiff should show that support by donating money or time to a common fund, much like donating money to NewYorkCountryLawyer's website for the outstanding work he does.

One man cannot win any battle, but it only takes one spokesperson to rally a thousand supporters. It's a question of who is willing to put their neck on the line. If I could guarantee that the rest of the nation wouldn't be the apathetic, TV-hungry baffoons we know them to be, I'd be first

I have prepaid service through T-Mobile, and I never have to worry about this sort of thing.

Why?

Because all they have on me is a name and a birth date. No address. No social security number. No drivers license number. No credit card number. Nothing. In fact, when I set up the phone they didn't ask for any proof of the validity of the birth date, nor if the name was even mine.

I can buy more minutes at any of their locations, paying cash, to ensure total anonymity.

I am 100% sure that Verizon will demand a bunch of money before these companies get to see any of your personal, private information. Once the companies have made the payment, then they can do whatever they want with your information. And if they make their regular monthly payments, they get access to updated information from Verizon.

They're a regulated monopoly.. why do they need other "revenue streams"? They're not a "normal" company in that they can ask for rate increases to cover any operational losses... they have no need for income streams from other purposes... they shouldn't be handing out customer data.. because you have no real way to opt out of their monopoly.

Bullshit about obligations to shareholders. The shareholders invest their money of their own free will. If they think they've made a bad bargain then they shouldn't have invested or should sell their shares. And it stops there. If someone gives me £500, I'm not obliged to go out and kill their rich grandparent for them. Why not? Because it's against the law and they didn't give me the money on the expectation that I would go out and indulge in unethical behaviour on their part and if they did then more fool them.

Companies don't exist as indivisible entities. Somewhere there are people saying "lets violate people's privacy" and they should be personally held accountable because they are personally responsible.

Bullshit about obligations to shareholders. The shareholders invest their money of their own free will. If they think they've made a bad bargain then they shouldn't have invested or should sell their shares. And it stops there.

Unless of course, they're the ones with the money, so the law protects them and only them. Even with your money.

The purpose of the legal entity known as a corporation is to make a company an indivisible entity and shield it's officers and shareholders from responsibility for the actions of the officers and shareholders.

That certainly is the purpose. And a child can say that his friends told him to do something wrong. In either case the purpose is to pretend the responsibility lies elsewhere. That doesn't mean it does.

Law, especially the law around very big businesses, is not always the same as what is right and wrong. We shouldn't allow the passing of a law to change our principles. Laws can be changed.

Mr. Pimp says
All fees where clearly listed.
She let you connect to all 3 ports and you dont have a rash. Thats better than Microsoft. She did not report your pillow talk to the feds, thats better than Verizon.

Opting out was painless, just had to call a number and it was automated... *however* people should have to opt *IN* not opt out.

But then they'd have to offer you something in return, to entice you to opt in. The underhanded way they're doing it, it costs them nothing. Most likely, their income from selling customer information won't be reduced unless quite a lot of subscribers opt out.

I had Verizon for 5 years and boy, am I happy that I dropped them like hot potatoes. I even had to fight them for 9 months for getting my due rebate.
Moreover, I found out that they had me on collection for years because the idiot that I returned the phone to the day after purchasing it (it malfunctioned) forgot to do their paperwork. I had to get the FTC involved and finally they stopped asking for money. What's worse was that they don't communicate among departments otherwise they would have seen that I had an active line with payments made regularly.

Look, I know the UK gets slammed regularly here on Slashdot for CCTV privacy issues and government spying, but at least we have a halfway decent Data Protection Act with teeth. A company pulling this kind of shit wouldnt get 2 steps in the UK. Doesnt the US have something similar to deter blatant abuses like this?

I think the subtle irony of your post may be lost on the less British.
my personal favourite is the local council that used anti terror legislation to spy on a family who were applying for a school place. Thank goodness commercial organisations cant protect us in this way - yet.

Look, I know the UK gets slammed regularly here on Slashdot for CCTV privacy issues and government spying, but at least we have a halfway decent Data Protection Act with teeth. A company pulling this kind of shit wouldnt get 2 steps in the UK. Doesnt the US have something similar to deter blatant abuses like this?

They've been forced to allow LLU, which breaks the monopoly somewhat, and they're also compelled to offer competitive prices with their Wholesale packages.

However, cable companies aside (who are only available in specific areas), BT still own the entire infrastructure, and while they may be complying with the Anti-Trust ruling, they'll still do everything in their power to maintain their dominance.

You try and start an ISP in the UK, and let me know how far you get without BT's involvement.

We have contracts. I am a Verizon customer and I read this story and called up and now, I'm opted out (I offered to opt in for $5/month off my bill, about what I think that's worth, they declined). In the end-game, if VZ wouldn't agree to let me opt out, I'd consider other service providers, compare all my options, and pick the one I liked the most.

For the masses that don't care to opt-out, they don't care! Giving out personal information is not an injury to people that don't care. I know it's impossible for/.ers to imagine that other people might have more a different set of priorities than they do, but it's a fact that different people care about different sets of things. Even people that care about the same set of things assign different weights and will come up with different tradeoffs. What's nice about a system of voluntary associations is that those sets of priorities can be efficiently mapped into different contract terms instead of everyone getting a one-sized-fits-all solution.

I really cannot understand why some people believe that they have the right to dictate the terms under which someone sells them a service. If you went into the grocery store and saw a 6-pack of apples being sold for $1, would you demand (citing some clearly inalienable right) that they sell you a 5-pack of apples for $.80? If you don't want apples on the terms that the store is selling them, buy them from a different store. If no store has terms you approve of, then you have to admit the fact that no other human being will voluntarily give you his apples under those terms. Either change your terms, or start rationalizing to yourself your right to seize those apples from him involuntarily.

The problem is not that Verizon shouldn't be allowed to sell you services under their rules; that is fine. What isn't fine is selling service under one set of rules and then changing those rules with little notice (or apparently none if you view your bill online), especially when those changes concern your privacy.

Verizon: "But Mr Dent, the privacy opt-out contract has been available in the local telecom office for the last nine months."

Dent: "Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

Verizon: "But the contract was on display..."

Dent: "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

Verizon: "That's the display department."

Dent: "With a flashlight."

Verizon: "Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

Dent: "So had the stairs."

Verizon: "But look, you found the privacy notice didn't you?"

Dent: "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

The problem is that the stance you take ignores the whole concept of barter which has been part of human existence since a guy first decided to sell apples. Only with the advent of mass marketing has it been acceptable for a company to entirely dictate the terms of the apple sale. Before, I could walk into a store and ask them if they'll sell me that package of apples for $.80, and it would be totally okay. There are markets in other countries where this is still considered acceptable, and where merchants price items specifically so that they can haggle down to a reasonable price. The fact that we accept without question that companies just sell us service for a flat rate means that they don't have to compete as directly with each other.

Furthermore, we don't believe in our unalienable right to those apples. We believe that we have the right to negotiate the price of those apples or seek apples elsewhere. Reasonable people realise that it's unreasonable to expect anyone to part with anything without a fair exchange. We would only quibble over what constitutes fairness. Maybe you're the one being irrational? Isn't it a bit irrational to expect people not to negotiate for anything at all?

Case in point, I asked a bank teller if one of their fees was reasonable, and she promptly removed it after thinking about it herself. It's okay to want to negotiate.

Did you even read the summary of the article? Verizon will be selling things like billing info, technical info and location info, among other things.

Name ONE person that enjoys junk mail and unsolicited phone calls during supper about getting your windshield repaired, or refinancing their credit card debt, or unneeded car insurance.

Yours is an indefensible position. Nobody wants what Verizon is trying to do with their personal info, and every rational person knows that.

Although it's true that we can't dictate the exact cost of a service, having personal information sold to other companies at no benefit to the consumer on an opt out basis is wrong, regardless of the context.

If it's a way to have your bills reduced or if it's on an opt in rather than opt out basis, then maybe I'd be more sympathetic to your stance, but, as it stands, Verizon is selling private information to other companies with no benefit to the end consumer. There is no way, regardless of your convoluted view of the system, that such a situation could ever be considered fair or right.

Yeah, but name one person who enjoys paying more for services than their neighbor.

Verizon will be selling personal information for *money*, and this influx of capital will mean that customers won't have to be 100% responsible for Verizon's monthly operating budget, upgrade projects, or anything else that the company spends money on.

Every successful company (and let's face it, Verizon is one of them) spends its money wisely. It's not like the money Verizon is getting for this is going to the Buy-the-CEO-a-Mercedes fund -- it will go into the budget just as all the customer payments do.

If Verizon doesn't sell your info (which most customers don't value much anyway), then either service will degrade, prices will go up, or Verizon will not be able to offer new products. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

- possibly you are correct. It is also possible that you are wrong and that most people don't understand what is being done to them. They may not understand that it is even possible for a company, which is only supposed to provide them with a service for a fee, can also make more money on creating a nuisance for the customer by selling customers' private information that will be used for unsolicited advertisement.

If Verizon actually expected most customers to be able to understand what was offered, they

> Our government used to stop these things, but they got bought out by the corporations about 20 years ago.

Let's call a duck a duck. It was thanks to Ronald Reagan, the greatest almighty president, that corporations got more and more power. For those who were too young to know, or forgot, banks also had a limit to how much interest they could charge on a credit card, but Reagan decided it wasn't fair and made them free to charge whatever they wanted. Good Morning 29% APR.
Thanks George W. Reagan!

> Our government used to stop these things, but they got bought out by the corporations about 20 years ago.

Let's call a duck a duck. It was thanks to Ronald Reagan, the greatest almighty president, that corporations got more and more power. For those who were too young to know, or forgot, banks also had a limit to how much interest they could charge on a credit card, but Reagan decided it wasn't fair and made them free to charge whatever they wanted. Good Morning 29% APR.
Thanks George W. Reagan!

I'm not going to disagree with you about who started chipping away at the public good in favor of corporate greed. Sadly though, I think that both major parties are guilty. Priority goes to getting yourself re-elected, which involves bringing the most pork into your district and making the corporate lobbyists happy so that they don't overthrow you on the next election.

When advertising and lobbyists started having more effect on elections than the actual facts on the ground, the general public lost out.

If the UK's Data Protection Act had any teeth at all, they would have ruled the IP packet inspecting / changing Phorm system [wikipedia.org] illegal under existing laws, and not have the situation that the Phorm company is going around trying to suppress knowledge of their system to subscribers of the three scumbag internet providers that will roll out this system (BT, Virgin Media, TalkTalk).

Sadly our whores....errr politicians sold us out years ago. Unless you got a big bag o' cash your voice and those of your fellow citizens is pretty much worthless here. That is why my boys, who will both soon turn 18, say they will never vote. They say it isn't worth even five minutes of their time for what has become nothing but a sham. Sadly I couldn't really argue with them as they had a point.

Here we have voted FOUR times now for a lotto so our kids can get free college education. Our whores...cough cou

The solution is to grow a spine. Cut them off. Yes, that means gasp! canceling your service. We've managed to survive for very long periods without cell phones. And we still can. The only difference is a little less convenience.

It's sad that this has to be pointed out, but I do understand that it's honestly an odd concept nowadays: You can still carry a cell phone for when you need it and not be "on call" by turning the little sucker off. I get questions sometimes, but when I ask "you got my voicemail, didn't you?" it usually shuts up the inquirer.

OT, I was going to switch to Verizon this spring, but given the crappy service you get at their stores and now this crap, I'll be sticking with something a little bit more private (pa

Nokia phones used to have a fantastic feature, though I'm sure they could now (or indeed any phones). You could add Contacts into Groups (no surprise there, fairly common) and set "Selective Diversion". I had my phone set up so friends could call 24/7, but calls from a work number outside 8-8 were automatically diverted to voicemail. It wasn't perfect, if I recall, as it was being done by the handset, not the network, so you might get the occasional half-ring before diversion, but was a nice way of managing

You know, you can just turn off your phone when you don't want to receive calls, and screen them when you do want to receive calls. It's not rocket science, I do it all the time. If it's important, they'll leave a message.

CC companies do this kinda stuff all the time. You get a letter of an upcoming policy change, and you throw it out not even bothering to read it, since your options are usually A) Agree to the new terms, or B) Pay off and close your account.

I guess what I'm saying is, I've lost all faith in large companies to do the right thing. After I saw my tax dollars pay CEOs large bonuses, I just gave up. Game's over man.

Of course, this happens right as people start forgetting about how much Verizon sucks at math.

Yup, exactly. "You may opt out of this change." With fine print (or maybe not even then, but a followup letter, "By opting out of this change, we have exercised our right to close your account. All balances are now due and payable in full within 14 days."

The other sneaky one, "Your payment of your next bill indicates your acceptance of the changes to the Terms and Conditions outlined in this letter". Wow. Nice. I guess "Agree to these changes, or watch us fuck your credit score" might be likely to alienate

Replying to myself. Looks like it is Verizon Wireless. But it also looks like it's fairly easy to opt out of. You can either do it through your settings on the Verizon Wireless [verizonwireless.com] website, or via phone at 1-800-333-9956.

They've been doing it for a long time, when I signed up with Verizon in November it came with a piece of paper telling about the information sharing and how to opt out. This article seems at least 5 months to late.

Also, I did get a letter in December about it (but I'd opted out when I first signed up).

Personally, I give them kudos for even notifying me (at the signing of the contract even), and more so for the option to opt out (I've had other companies notify me, but no opt-out option, and it's rare that

Unless you provide us with notice that you wish to opt out within 30 days of us providing notice to you in your bill or through the mail, we will assume that you give us the right to share your CPNI with the authorized companies as described above.

Q4. How do I give my consent to share CPNI?
A. Unless you provide us with notice that you wish to opt out within 45 days of receiving this letter, we will assume that you give us the right to share yo

Does this mean I can opt out of my phone contract without penalty? I've been looking for a way to get on to a proper GSM carrier without paying the early termination fee. Or does it just mean I can opt out of the data sharing?

Several years ago, my local PBS station was begging for donations. I was about to call in and donate $50 when they said they would give you a 1-year subscription to Fast Company magazine if you dontated $60, so that's what I did. A few days later, I got a postcard in the mail thanking me for my donation and saying I would receive my subscription shortly, but my name was misspelled in a unique way. I never received a single issue of the magazine, but I got several solicitations from various charities with the same misspelling.

A message to all corporations and non-profits: If someone gives you money for a donation, service, or product, be thankful for it and treat them with an ounce of respect instead of turning around and screwing them for a few extra pennies by selling their personal info.

The court case resulting from the 2007 FCC regs requiring consumers to be able to opt to not have their information shared was finally decided on 2/19. That's what caused this notice to be sent. For more information check out this link to the EPIC website: http://epic.org/privacy/cpni/ [epic.org]. It includes links to opt out for both Verizon and SBC.

For the lazy: Call (866) 483-9600 to opt out with Verizon. It's automated and you'll need the the primary phone number on the account, the account name, plus you'll have to leave voicemail that states the primary name on the account, billing address, the name of the caller, and a callback number for the caller. It seems that they're determined to make this as painful as possible.

Your explanation doesn't get Verizon off the hook, it merely dilutes the blame. And it doesn't dilute it enough. I believe they would need to hold less than 20% of the stock (I forget how much less) to not be considered culpable were this a suit.

Verizon believes that before a company captures certain Internet-usage data for targeted or customized advertising purposes, it should obtain meaningful, affirmative consent from consumers." To get that meaningful consent, Tauke said, requires a) explaining to consumers exactly what kind of data are being collected and for what; b) treating a failure to consent as meaning no collection of data for "online behavioral marketing"; and c) consumers' ability to easily opt out if they initially agree but change their minds.

The one where Verizon is so incompetent that they can't find their own ass with a map.

What world do you live in where you think that crazy large companies formed out of mergers with disparate functions are 'the same company'? They can't even manage to get their billing (omg super package!) right between services.

I hate Verizon as much as the next guy (overpriced DSL with no servers, super shitty phone service, etc - though I might change my mind if they rollout FiOS!) but it doesn't take any great thinking

CPNI approval is used by the telecoms to allow them to treat your entire account (landline, internet, long distance, wireless, etc.) as one account. Without CPNI approval the telecom will treat each one of those things as belonging to separate companies (since the silly laws have made the telecoms into several companies to provide these services.)

From the comments at Gizmodo there was a post that explained how to opt out from your web account

Sign in to the Verizon website.- On the red bar near the top, hover over "My Verizon." Click on "My Profile." (Don't go over to the sub-menu that pops up.)- In the second section down, under Phone Controls, there's a link to "View/Edit Privacy (CPNI) Settings." Click on that.- Voila! Click on the button that says "Don't share my CPNI." Remember to hit the save button before you leave.

I am a Verizon customer and I have opted out of sharing CPNI. I don't know what the new privacy statements are, my privacy policy hasn't been updated in the last six months, but I bet it has to do with CPNI. Here is the section from VZW's customer agreement.

What is confusing is whether "personal information" is limited to Name, number, address, etc, or also includes CPNI (the non-identifiable info).

I'm becoming sick of it. Every commercial Tom Dick and Harry seems to take it onto himself to "share" (read "sell") whatever part of our personal data they can lay their hands on with absolutely anyone (who pays enough to become an "affiliate").

And this isn't about name, address, age, gender information either. It's everything an ISP can figure out about you without actually reading your email.

Who needs this ? (except companies selling off your details and other companies using it to spam you and/or to

What is it with companies and selling personal information these days?

You answered your own question: money. As long as millions upon millions of not-particularly-bright people insist on buying useless stuff that advertisers tell them they absolutely must own, our personal information will continue to be valuable. Me, I quite pointedly a. don't watch advertising and b. will not buy anything from an advertisement to which I might accidentally find myself exposed.